RESHMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 17.3.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner convicting appellants Reshma Ram and Smt.Shanti, wife of deceased Anopa Ram of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that on 19.11.1999 at 12.30 P.M. , P.W.4 Jagmala Ram submitted a written report at the Police Station, Bajju stating that his son Anopa Ram was mentally sick for the last 3-4 years. Inspite of all sort of treatment, his mental condition did not improve. He used to live with his family in a Dhani constructed on his field. In the morning, wife of Anopa informed him that at about 4 A.M. , her husband went to the field to push deer & wild cows off the field but he accidentally fell in the water tank. When she went to fetch water in the morning, his dead body was found lying in the water. He went to the spot alongwith his son P.W.3 Manoher Lal. It was also stated that Anopa Ram died on account of accidental fall in the water tank being insane. On this information, police commenced enquiry under Section 174 CrPC. The police proceeded to the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.3A. The inquest report Ex.P.7 was also prepared. The dead body was sent for post mortem. P.W.5 Dr.Satya Narain conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Anopa Ram vide Ex.P.10 and noticed following injuries on his person:

(3.) Injury No.3 Contusion 3cm x 1cm on tongue anteriorly near tip with swelling. Antemortem & fresh before death. The doctor reserved the opinion stating that cause of death shall be ascertained after receipt of chemical examination report & diatom examination report, for which visceras were preserved and sealed. The dead body of Anopa Ram was entrusted to his father Jagmala Ram on the same day for funeral. 3. On 21.11.1999 at about 1 P.M., P.W.1 Shankerlal submitted a fresh report Ex.P.1 at the Police Station, Baj ju stating inter alia that they were four brothers viz; Manoharlal, deceased Anopa Ram, Banwarilal and himself. They lived in Dhani in Chak 1 BJM. On 19.11.99, his elder brother Manoharlal informed that the dead body of Anopa Ram was lying in the tank of the field. The half of his body i.e. below waist was in the water. He rushed to the spot alongwith his wife. On enquiry, it revealed that wife of Anopa Ram viz; Shanti was having illicit relations with the appellant Reshma Ram. As per his information, Mst.Shanti and Reshma Ram killed Anopa Ram and threw his body in the tank. On this information Ex.P.1, the police registered a case for offence u/s.302 IPC. Appellant Reshma Ram was arrested on 22.11.1999 vide Ex.P.14. At the same time, Mst.Shanti was also arrested on 22.11.99 vide Ex.P.5. At the time of arrest, she was carrying a female child of two and a half years. After usual investigation, the police laid chargesheet against the appellants for offence u/s.302 IPC. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case, adduced oral & documentary evidence. Appellant Shanti in her statement under Section 313 CrPC denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against her. She stated that her husband was insane and he died on account of insanity. She denied the allegation of her illicit relations with appellant Reshma Ram. She pleaded innocence. Appellant Reshma Ram also denied the allegations of his illicit relations with Smt.Shanti and pleaded innocence. In defence, they examined D.W.1 Bhikha Ram and D.W.2 Kisna Ram. The learned trial Court discredited the testimony of P.W.1 Shankerlal, P.W.3 Manoherlal and P.W.4 Jagmala Ram with respect to extra judicial confession of Smt.Shanti. However, the learned Judge on the sole testimony of child witness P.W.2 Raja Ram found the prosecution case proved. Accordingly, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above.